WEBVTT - The Anti-Aging Debate 0:00:00.160 --> 0:00:07.160 Brought to you by Toyota. Let's go places. Welcome to 0:00:07.360 --> 0:00:15.400 Forward Thinking. Hey there, and welcomed up Forward Thinking, the 0:00:15.560 --> 0:00:18.480 podcast that looks at the future and says, what is 0:00:18.520 --> 0:00:21.600 this thing that builds our dreams yet slips away from us? 0:00:21.920 --> 0:00:25.680 I'm Jonathan Strictlin, I'm Lauren Bocaban, and I'm Joe McCormick. 0:00:25.760 --> 0:00:28.080 Today is going to be part two of a two 0:00:28.120 --> 0:00:32.480 part series we're doing on anti aging technologies, the reversal 0:00:32.520 --> 0:00:36.400 of aging. Can you forestall death for some number of years? 0:00:36.440 --> 0:00:39.560 Can you make your tissues seem younger again? In the 0:00:39.640 --> 0:00:44.120 last episode, we looked at some technologies and recent advances 0:00:44.200 --> 0:00:47.640 and ideas about how long it would be before it 0:00:47.760 --> 0:00:51.280 was possible for us to to become younger again, to 0:00:51.320 --> 0:00:55.440 achieve true rejuvenation through science and technology. But today we 0:00:55.480 --> 0:00:58.840 want to look at some of the philosophy, you might say, 0:00:58.920 --> 0:01:02.000 or the ethics surround funding these claims, or the science 0:01:02.040 --> 0:01:05.119 in some cases. Yeah, we're looking at how there are 0:01:06.160 --> 0:01:10.080 some very strong voices on different sides of this issue 0:01:11.080 --> 0:01:14.800 and what they are arguing and what they are claiming 0:01:14.840 --> 0:01:18.720 the other side represents um or sides, I should say, 0:01:18.760 --> 0:01:21.560 because it's not like it's just two. It's kind of 0:01:21.600 --> 0:01:24.520 simpler to think of them as too. And in large 0:01:24.520 --> 0:01:28.800 part we're going to be focusing on Aubrey Degray's philosophy 0:01:30.280 --> 0:01:35.080 versus people who think that that philosophy is uh, let's 0:01:35.080 --> 0:01:38.240 say junk. There are many other words that we could 0:01:38.360 --> 0:01:41.880 use that some people would believe are are relevant. And 0:01:42.000 --> 0:01:45.120 it's really an interesting way of looking at how the 0:01:45.160 --> 0:01:48.840 scientific community handles this sort of stuff, and where you 0:01:49.000 --> 0:01:52.760 fall on this issue may depend heavily on your own 0:01:52.840 --> 0:01:57.080 personal point of view as well as just your confidence 0:01:57.640 --> 0:02:04.400 in the scientific knowledge and ability of whichever camp you 0:02:04.400 --> 0:02:07.080 you find yourself. You know, more in support of right, 0:02:07.120 --> 0:02:09.480 because it's not just the science community that is talking 0:02:09.480 --> 0:02:11.320 about this kind of thing. I mean, I mean we 0:02:11.440 --> 0:02:14.720 all talk about aging, we all think about it, we 0:02:14.800 --> 0:02:18.400 all purchase products related to it, or at least many 0:02:18.440 --> 0:02:20.680 many of us do. Or I mean at least many 0:02:20.720 --> 0:02:23.160 of us drink water and eat vegetables that that sometimes 0:02:23.160 --> 0:02:27.200 counts a little bit of water. You do, yeah, and 0:02:28.520 --> 0:02:34.160 every every month it's nothing but coffee For Jonathan, I mean, 0:02:34.680 --> 0:02:38.040 I don't buy the water. Why you just get it 0:02:38.080 --> 0:02:41.399 from natural water sources? What? What do you have? Rain? Barrels, 0:02:41.639 --> 0:02:44.840 of course I do. Is that legal? Here? Am I 0:02:44.840 --> 0:02:48.880 getting you in trouble? Alright? So sorry? Sorry? Yeah, no, no no, no, 0:02:48.919 --> 0:02:50.800 it's it's it's a very impassionate subject, is what I'm 0:02:50.840 --> 0:02:53.440 trying to say, right, And and it's one that gets 0:02:53.440 --> 0:02:56.440 a lot of coverage to right, it's oh yeah, yeah, 0:02:56.560 --> 0:02:59.280 for I mean, who would have thought that people want 0:02:59.360 --> 0:03:02.200 to read about ways that they could live longer or 0:03:02.240 --> 0:03:06.280 be healthier for longer spans of their life. For some reason, 0:03:06.280 --> 0:03:08.120 people seem to feel like they have a vested interest 0:03:08.160 --> 0:03:10.679 in this j Yeah. So it's not just a conversation 0:03:10.720 --> 0:03:14.080 among scientists, are among the general lay population, but also 0:03:14.160 --> 0:03:18.880 among the science communication media. Yeah, and I think that's 0:03:19.520 --> 0:03:22.280 the source of some of these problems. I mean, one 0:03:22.360 --> 0:03:26.520 problem with this topic is that it inherently has the 0:03:26.600 --> 0:03:30.160 features and by this topic, I mean research into anti 0:03:30.200 --> 0:03:33.920 aging technologies. It inherently has the features of a research 0:03:34.000 --> 0:03:38.680 program that lends itself to first sensational reporting and second 0:03:38.920 --> 0:03:43.600 something I would call skeptics fatigue. Where there are some 0:03:43.640 --> 0:03:46.640 other topics like this, For example, how about an easy, 0:03:46.760 --> 0:03:50.000 side effect free solution to weight loss, Whether this is 0:03:50.040 --> 0:03:53.120 a drug or technique, A certain new diet, new food, 0:03:53.200 --> 0:03:55.960 whatever would I would also argue that a very similar 0:03:55.960 --> 0:03:58.720 approach that doesn't have anything to do with health would 0:03:58.760 --> 0:04:03.520 be any of new energy or propulsion system. We've seen 0:04:03.560 --> 0:04:08.320 these reported multiple times, and there is I often see 0:04:08.360 --> 0:04:10.720 that same kind of response to those as well. Well. 0:04:10.800 --> 0:04:13.520 I'd say that that's pretty different though, because a lot 0:04:13.560 --> 0:04:16.440 of those things claim to violate the known laws of physics. 0:04:16.480 --> 0:04:20.320 I'm not talking about perpetual motions some of these articles 0:04:20.920 --> 0:04:26.159 proposed to Okay, well, no, I mean what I'd say though, 0:04:26.200 --> 0:04:29.039 is that I'd argue, at least there's absolutely nothing in 0:04:29.040 --> 0:04:33.320 principle that makes either of these projects either easy side 0:04:33.320 --> 0:04:37.039 effect free weight loss, or reversal of aging impossible to 0:04:37.080 --> 0:04:41.080 accomplish in principle. I mean, they're they're health engineering issues. 0:04:41.120 --> 0:04:44.120 Can you engineer a drug that does this? It's entirely possible. 0:04:44.440 --> 0:04:48.400 There's a drug that makes you healthy, successful, dieting easy 0:04:48.720 --> 0:04:51.760 that I mean that that could exist. I want this drug. 0:04:51.839 --> 0:04:54.760 Where are you keeping these drugs? I'll take your money 0:04:54.800 --> 0:04:58.480 in a minute. But and then also, a particular therapy 0:04:58.560 --> 0:05:02.080 could make your body effectively twenty years younger without causing cancer. 0:05:02.360 --> 0:05:04.880 There's no reason I can see why this wouldn't be 0:05:04.880 --> 0:05:09.440 a thing that could happen. But because these projects are 0:05:09.520 --> 0:05:13.560 hoping to provide satisfaction of deep desires people have, like 0:05:13.640 --> 0:05:17.039 you know, be thin, befit, be healthy, live longer, be 0:05:17.120 --> 0:05:21.520 more attractive, live forever. Uh, these are these are desires 0:05:21.520 --> 0:05:24.920 that are held widely by people who aren't very involved 0:05:24.920 --> 0:05:27.520 with science and don't read about science a whole lot. 0:05:27.839 --> 0:05:32.920 They these topics tend to reward sensational journalism and over 0:05:33.000 --> 0:05:36.040 hyping of the meaningfulness of new studies. You ever notice 0:05:36.080 --> 0:05:38.359 how like every few months there's a new study that 0:05:38.400 --> 0:05:40.839 could mean the end of aging or could be the 0:05:40.920 --> 0:05:45.400 new solutioned easy weight loss. And you know, it doesn't 0:05:45.440 --> 0:05:47.719 help that we live in the age of clickbait, where 0:05:48.440 --> 0:05:51.040 headlines are specifically engineered to try and get people to 0:05:51.080 --> 0:05:53.039 click on them and may or may not be an 0:05:53.080 --> 0:05:56.680 accurate representation of the actual information that is included after 0:05:56.760 --> 0:06:02.120 you click. Yeah, but beyond that, they're also bad people, right, 0:06:02.800 --> 0:06:05.040 there are bad people out there who want to prey 0:06:05.080 --> 0:06:08.560 on these deep desires exactly. I mean, if you are 0:06:08.720 --> 0:06:12.960 a person with no scruples, then you could easily identify 0:06:13.000 --> 0:06:17.640 a target audience that has a very vulnerable point to 0:06:17.839 --> 0:06:21.000 aim at and use that as your means of leveraging 0:06:21.040 --> 0:06:23.960 that person so that you can make buckoo's of money 0:06:24.120 --> 0:06:26.440 and happens all the time. That's one of the ways 0:06:26.480 --> 0:06:29.000 that you wind up getting things like twelve day juice 0:06:29.040 --> 0:06:33.120 detoxes being appetised. Yeah wait, those don't actually make you 0:06:33.200 --> 0:06:36.320 live to nine hundred, not that I'm personally aware of, 0:06:36.400 --> 0:06:43.120 but the math, they sure do move a lot of juice. Yeah, 0:06:43.200 --> 0:06:45.640 I mean, you've probably seen this stuff in banner ads. 0:06:45.760 --> 0:06:49.880 One one easy trick to stay skinny forever. One simple 0:06:49.960 --> 0:06:53.359 technique to become twenty years younger. You tune into basic 0:06:53.480 --> 0:06:58.000 cable either like before six am, you're gonna see these. 0:06:58.279 --> 0:07:01.920 Yeah this this mom created a miracle cure. Dentists hate her. 0:07:02.240 --> 0:07:06.400 So these phony ads, these phony predatory ads, plus just 0:07:06.960 --> 0:07:10.480 maybe well meaning but just not very good. Over hyped 0:07:10.600 --> 0:07:14.880 media representation of of research in these areas I think 0:07:15.000 --> 0:07:19.640 leads many skeptical people to be inherently reserved about these subjects, 0:07:19.680 --> 0:07:22.600 maybe more than they would be if they weren't reacting 0:07:22.680 --> 0:07:24.760 to this kind of coverage all the time, if you 0:07:24.760 --> 0:07:27.200 know what I mean, Like I often since in the 0:07:27.280 --> 0:07:31.400 tone of their reactions that many skeptical science writers feel 0:07:31.440 --> 0:07:35.720 compelled to downplay the importance of research in areas like 0:07:35.920 --> 0:07:40.560 aging reversal, or even the merits of the whole project 0:07:40.600 --> 0:07:43.280 of research itself. You know, and I can understand the 0:07:43.320 --> 0:07:45.440 reason for this, but also I think if a therapy 0:07:45.480 --> 0:07:48.320 does appear to show promise for reducing symptoms of aging, 0:07:49.000 --> 0:07:52.400 that's worth responsibly spreading information about. Oh sure, well, and 0:07:52.600 --> 0:07:53.760 I and I do want to put in like I 0:07:53.800 --> 0:07:55.640 feel like we're being a little bit harsh on on 0:07:55.680 --> 0:07:58.880 both the research end and also on the media. And 0:07:58.880 --> 0:08:02.240 and I don't think that majority of people are trying 0:08:02.320 --> 0:08:04.880 to trick you. I think that a lot of people 0:08:04.880 --> 0:08:08.720 who are creating these types of therapies genuinely believe, perhaps 0:08:08.720 --> 0:08:12.480 through misunderstanding of science, that what they're doing is is 0:08:12.560 --> 0:08:15.160 good and can help people. And I genuinely believe that 0:08:15.240 --> 0:08:17.520 most media. I mean, I know that I've written headlines 0:08:17.520 --> 0:08:19.560 where like afterwards someone kind of called me on it. 0:08:19.600 --> 0:08:21.400 They were like, that's click baity, and I was like, 0:08:21.520 --> 0:08:24.600 oh it is, um, oh well, I mean exactly what 0:08:24.640 --> 0:08:26.160 I was just about to say was I think a 0:08:26.160 --> 0:08:28.840 lot of the times the research is fine, even the 0:08:28.840 --> 0:08:31.680 whole article itself is fine. But an editor put a 0:08:31.680 --> 0:08:35.600 headline on it that's like, what, Well, there's there's also 0:08:35.720 --> 0:08:39.240 the issue of press releases that are written by someone 0:08:39.280 --> 0:08:42.520 who's in pr who doesn't necessarily have an actual understanding 0:08:43.559 --> 0:08:47.320 the science behind it, who might be misrepresenting a scientist's work, 0:08:47.320 --> 0:08:53.760 and the scientist would never exactly and yet the press 0:08:53.760 --> 0:08:57.200 releases what the media picks up. Uh, and the media 0:08:57.640 --> 0:09:01.280 may or may not rework that us released to any extent, 0:09:01.360 --> 0:09:05.600 which could potentially make it even more cloudy than what 0:09:05.679 --> 0:09:08.480 it was before. And you get to this level where 0:09:08.520 --> 0:09:13.080 what is being communicated to the public may not reflect reality, again, 0:09:13.200 --> 0:09:17.320 not through any kind of malicious intent to misinformed, but 0:09:17.480 --> 0:09:22.160 rather through just a human failing, which happens. So so 0:09:22.200 --> 0:09:24.240 I think I think along these lines. We kind of 0:09:24.280 --> 0:09:26.360 touched on this in the last episode, but I think Joe, 0:09:26.400 --> 0:09:30.079 you had a proposal for us. Oh yeah, the easy, 0:09:30.280 --> 0:09:34.040 if you will, The easiest way to to bring down 0:09:34.320 --> 0:09:37.440 the temperature of these whole conversations is to never again 0:09:37.559 --> 0:09:41.959 use the phrase fountain of youth for anything related to science. Yes, 0:09:42.280 --> 0:09:46.240 it's all now just spiggot of infancy of health, speak 0:09:46.360 --> 0:09:50.920 of health with a teenage waste land. Okay, visiting the 0:09:50.920 --> 0:09:55.320 teenage wasteland, so slightly more confusing message. But I understand, 0:09:55.600 --> 0:09:57.720 well we should we should transition to talking about that. 0:09:57.760 --> 0:10:00.600 There is definitely a camp of thinker is out there 0:10:00.679 --> 0:10:05.800 who are not fond of anti aging research for various reasons. 0:10:05.840 --> 0:10:09.200 They might think that, uh, this is not actually a 0:10:09.200 --> 0:10:12.920 fruitful avenue of research, or they might have philosophical or 0:10:12.920 --> 0:10:16.480 ethical objections to the project. And this this was something 0:10:16.520 --> 0:10:19.880 that if we had been doing this podcast fifteen years ago, 0:10:20.400 --> 0:10:25.640 this conversation would probably focus almost entirely on on the 0:10:25.640 --> 0:10:30.200 burgeoning field of stem cell research, because back then, uh, 0:10:30.240 --> 0:10:34.319 it was very It's still in some ways it was 0:10:34.360 --> 0:10:37.040 a very controversial subject. It's less so now because we 0:10:37.160 --> 0:10:41.120 found other means of accessing stem cells. Also, there's a 0:10:41.120 --> 0:10:44.400 greater understanding of how stem cell harvesting happens in the 0:10:44.440 --> 0:10:48.439 first place, where that's not as big an issue as 0:10:48.480 --> 0:10:53.079 it once was. However, there's still other things that that 0:10:53.160 --> 0:10:55.880 come into play when people start objecting to this sort 0:10:55.920 --> 0:10:58.400 of research. And sometimes it's not even that are they're 0:10:58.440 --> 0:11:01.120 objecting to the research, that objecting to the way it's 0:11:01.160 --> 0:11:04.240 being framed in such a way that it seems like 0:11:04.280 --> 0:11:09.280 the research is uh is trying to justify claims that 0:11:09.360 --> 0:11:12.679 have already been made, as opposed to research to find 0:11:12.679 --> 0:11:15.400 out if a hypothesis is true. It's more like this 0:11:15.520 --> 0:11:18.920 is research to we're gonna cherry pick all the data 0:11:19.200 --> 0:11:22.320 that seems to support this this premise that we have 0:11:22.400 --> 0:11:26.000 set forward. So part of the issue here, and we 0:11:26.080 --> 0:11:28.640 talked about this in our last episode, it's it's a big, 0:11:28.679 --> 0:11:30.960 big problem is that we don't have an agreement on 0:11:31.000 --> 0:11:34.400 what actually causes the process of aging, or that there 0:11:34.559 --> 0:11:36.680 is something so simple as to say this is what 0:11:36.800 --> 0:11:40.520 causes aging, and maybe multiple factors that are all kind 0:11:40.559 --> 0:11:43.920 of happening at generally the same time in our life. 0:11:44.480 --> 0:11:47.320 And so since we don't have that agreement, we don't 0:11:47.360 --> 0:11:50.480 have this scientific understanding of that. It makes it very 0:11:50.520 --> 0:11:54.040 difficult to have a meaningful conversation if you're coming at 0:11:54.040 --> 0:11:56.320 this from two different points, because it may be that 0:11:56.360 --> 0:11:59.840 one camp is really focused on one aspect of a 0:12:00.040 --> 0:12:02.600 jing and another campus focused on another aspect of aging. 0:12:02.920 --> 0:12:07.559 Perhaps they're both right individually, but that the overall picture 0:12:07.760 --> 0:12:11.160 is larger and and and incorporates both of them. Yeah. Yeah. 0:12:11.240 --> 0:12:13.760 The more that I've been researching this topic over the 0:12:13.800 --> 0:12:15.959 past week, or so, I honestly think that none of 0:12:16.000 --> 0:12:18.559 the party lines that I've heard about aging could possibly 0:12:18.640 --> 0:12:21.600 be totally right or totally wrong. Um, it's just so 0:12:21.679 --> 0:12:26.760 ludicrously complicated, and there's so many, so many factors. Yeah, exactly. 0:12:26.840 --> 0:12:29.600 So here here's some examples we've got, and we talked 0:12:29.640 --> 0:12:31.360 a little bit about this in our last episode two. 0:12:31.360 --> 0:12:34.480 You have the genetic hypothesis of aging, which talks about 0:12:34.480 --> 0:12:38.160 the genetic code that gives ourselves instructions on how to 0:12:38.200 --> 0:12:42.280 behave and what to do. Uh. And and that includes 0:12:42.679 --> 0:12:46.960 the instructions that could lead to an organism's death by 0:12:46.960 --> 0:12:50.160 by just extreme age. That could be That's where the 0:12:50.200 --> 0:12:52.400 secret is. You have to get that in the genetic code. 0:12:52.400 --> 0:12:55.760 You have to identify that and rewrite it. Uh. So 0:12:56.440 --> 0:13:00.839 we know that cellular death apoptosis, that that has something 0:13:00.840 --> 0:13:03.640 to do with the genetic code, that the biological clock 0:13:03.840 --> 0:13:06.720 is a thing. With cellular death, it is less clear 0:13:07.679 --> 0:13:11.320 leading to a poptosis, Yes, exactly, senescence being the the 0:13:11.320 --> 0:13:15.880 the halt of cellular division and then followed by apoptosis, 0:13:15.960 --> 0:13:19.640 which is cellular death. Uh, that's clear. It's less clear 0:13:19.880 --> 0:13:24.959 on an organism scale. If you know what what factor 0:13:25.440 --> 0:13:31.200 genetics plays, but it's an important little point to make. 0:13:31.280 --> 0:13:36.000 And then over on the pro anti aging side, so 0:13:36.040 --> 0:13:38.880 we have the anti anti aging and the pro anti aging. 0:13:39.640 --> 0:13:43.240 You have people like Aubrey de Gray who argues that 0:13:43.280 --> 0:13:47.200 aging is really the result of accumulated cellular damage. So 0:13:47.240 --> 0:13:52.240 he's really looking at a kind of Some would argue, uh, 0:13:52.360 --> 0:13:55.080 a step beyond whatever the root cause of aging is, 0:13:55.160 --> 0:13:58.600 this is the the effect of it that then causes 0:13:58.920 --> 0:14:02.520 other problem health problems. I don't know if he's updated 0:14:02.640 --> 0:14:05.200 his his ideas since then, but I remember the last 0:14:05.240 --> 0:14:08.080 time I researched degree, he had seven points right. He 0:14:08.160 --> 0:14:10.960 said that there are essentially seven things that happened that 0:14:11.080 --> 0:14:14.160 cause aging, and if you can fix these seven problems, 0:14:14.280 --> 0:14:18.160 you have stopped aging. Right, And and genetic therapies might 0:14:18.240 --> 0:14:21.280 play a part in treating the causes of aging in 0:14:21.400 --> 0:14:25.240 this sort of view, but it's not necessarily thought of 0:14:25.280 --> 0:14:27.280 as the ultimate stop. It may be that you find 0:14:27.280 --> 0:14:31.600 a treatment that stops the damage the cellular damage, or 0:14:31.680 --> 0:14:35.840 removes the cellular damage, or repairs the cellular damage, and 0:14:35.880 --> 0:14:38.600 that in itself becomes the anti aging treatment. So in 0:14:38.600 --> 0:14:40.880 other words, you might even have a treatment that doesn't 0:14:41.480 --> 0:14:45.560 address the root cause it just addresses the symptom at 0:14:45.600 --> 0:14:49.560 a speed that is sufficient to keep you from going 0:14:49.600 --> 0:14:54.600 down that particular route of aging, uh, which would be 0:14:54.680 --> 0:14:59.440 the spigot of health approach, I assume health. Now, those 0:14:59.480 --> 0:15:01.920 are not the only two hypotheses that attempted to explain 0:15:01.920 --> 0:15:05.120 the aging process. There are lots of them, but those 0:15:05.120 --> 0:15:07.000 are two big ones, and that's a big part of 0:15:07.000 --> 0:15:09.560 the where the problem lies. Right, What what about the 0:15:09.640 --> 0:15:12.240 hypothesis that it's just that you've been left out in 0:15:12.280 --> 0:15:21.600 the sun too long? Yeah? Oh oh no, I saw 0:15:21.640 --> 0:15:24.480 the opportunity and I took it. But anyway, Yeah, this 0:15:24.560 --> 0:15:26.800 is where you get these proponents of these different camps 0:15:26.800 --> 0:15:32.000 who they might be extremely knowledgeable about their particular discipline, 0:15:32.040 --> 0:15:36.240 their particular area of research, and because of that knowledge, 0:15:36.240 --> 0:15:38.120 and because of the expertise, and because of the time 0:15:38.160 --> 0:15:41.800 they have spent in there, uh, they feel that that 0:15:42.080 --> 0:15:47.080 is the most promising or most legitimate way to define aging. 0:15:47.440 --> 0:15:50.240 And the and and the other person is completely off base, 0:15:50.240 --> 0:15:53.400 whereas that other person is feeling exactly the same way 0:15:54.000 --> 0:15:56.760 right well, and especially when you get into the type 0:15:56.760 --> 0:15:59.280 of science communicators, you know, not not just researchers, but 0:15:59.320 --> 0:16:03.040 science community there's like Aubrey de Gray, who um, who 0:16:03.080 --> 0:16:07.760 are personalities unto themselves. You get into an area where 0:16:08.120 --> 0:16:14.000 it's definitely easier and it might be more profitable to say, yes, 0:16:14.080 --> 0:16:16.880 this thing is definitely the answer, and that other guy 0:16:16.960 --> 0:16:20.400 is wrong. And that other guy is a very polite 0:16:20.400 --> 0:16:23.640 way of of putting it, because, like I said, when 0:16:23.680 --> 0:16:27.200 you start researching this and you start looking into even 0:16:27.280 --> 0:16:32.080 the academic papers, there's a level of animosity that is 0:16:32.120 --> 0:16:36.560 just barely disguised by civil discourse. Oh yeah, I sort 0:16:36.600 --> 0:16:40.120 of feed on it. Actually. You know. One thing that's 0:16:40.160 --> 0:16:43.480 interesting to me is that makes me wonder if that 0:16:44.040 --> 0:16:49.520 level of color in the in the disagreement is evidence 0:16:49.680 --> 0:16:54.200 that this involves the violation of a taboo like that. 0:16:54.320 --> 0:16:58.800 It's not just that people are disagreeing about how to 0:16:58.840 --> 0:17:02.520 do something, or about whether a certain avenue of research 0:17:02.640 --> 0:17:07.160 is fruitful, but about whether people are having there they're 0:17:07.200 --> 0:17:11.720 sort of base instincts offended, maybe, I think, And it's 0:17:11.840 --> 0:17:14.239 not not can we do it? But should we do it? 0:17:14.560 --> 0:17:16.640 What shall we become if we do it? I'm sure 0:17:16.680 --> 0:17:21.040 that's well. There are certainly people who question research into 0:17:21.080 --> 0:17:24.239 anti aging who fall into that particular line of thinking. Right, 0:17:24.280 --> 0:17:27.119 the ones who say that is unnatural and therefore it 0:17:27.280 --> 0:17:30.720 is not right, you should not do that. UM. So 0:17:30.800 --> 0:17:32.439 there are people who feel that way. I don't know 0:17:32.480 --> 0:17:35.720 that that's the underlying cause for a lot of like 0:17:35.720 --> 0:17:39.439 like the the the doctors and scientists who disagree with 0:17:39.480 --> 0:17:43.320 degrees approach UH. It may may fall closer to the 0:17:43.400 --> 0:17:48.959 line of UM. I think of people who have I 0:17:49.000 --> 0:17:51.000 hate using this example, but it's the one that comes 0:17:51.000 --> 0:17:54.880 to mind anti vaxers, where you have doctors who are 0:17:55.520 --> 0:17:59.479 they've seen the benefits of vaccinations, they know the risks 0:17:59.520 --> 0:18:02.280 that are involved, and they are very small compared to 0:18:02.320 --> 0:18:08.320 the massive benefit that vaccinations provide. But you have a 0:18:08.480 --> 0:18:12.680 vocal group of people who have very strong feelings about this, 0:18:13.920 --> 0:18:18.320 somewhat based on UH. At least one person's claimed that 0:18:18.359 --> 0:18:22.560 it's a scientific attack against vaccination, saying that I have 0:18:22.640 --> 0:18:25.880 proof here that these things are bad. I think that UM. 0:18:26.040 --> 0:18:30.720 The the that some of Aubrey de Gray's critics, they 0:18:30.720 --> 0:18:32.879 probably wouldn't go so far as to say he's on 0:18:32.960 --> 0:18:36.679 that level right, but that Aubrey de Gray is at 0:18:36.720 --> 0:18:42.399 least in part a kind of almost like a Carnival barker, 0:18:42.520 --> 0:18:44.480 Like getting a lot of attention and a lot of 0:18:44.520 --> 0:18:47.560 excitement around this thing, which, by the way, leads to 0:18:47.720 --> 0:18:51.159 lots of money. We were talking about investment to to 0:18:51.359 --> 0:18:54.359 fund the research that Aubrey De Gray does, and that 0:18:54.600 --> 0:18:57.480 I think leads a lot of gives a lot of 0:18:57.480 --> 0:18:59.680 people a bad taste in their mouth, and that fuels 0:18:59.800 --> 0:19:04.119 the skeptical fatigue. Yeah, and in the case of m 0:19:04.160 --> 0:19:07.760 I T S Technology Review, a twenty thousand dollars worth 0:19:07.800 --> 0:19:11.360 of bad taste in their mouth. Actually, back in two five, 0:19:11.440 --> 0:19:14.520 after Aubrey De Gray's TED talk came out, I believe, 0:19:14.600 --> 0:19:17.760 was when this happened. Yeah, this is crazy. So when 0:19:17.760 --> 0:19:21.200 we're talking about animosity, So M I T S Technology Review, 0:19:21.240 --> 0:19:26.199 they ran a piece about, uh, the the claims that 0:19:26.240 --> 0:19:29.280 Aubrey De Gray was making after this TED talk, and 0:19:29.840 --> 0:19:35.280 it prompted a ton of reader response that they said 0:19:35.640 --> 0:19:41.240 was spirited and lively and led to them devising a competition. 0:19:41.800 --> 0:19:44.080 And in that competition, M I T put up ten 0:19:44.119 --> 0:19:47.280 thousand dollars and Aubrey De Gray put up the other 0:19:47.400 --> 0:19:52.399 ten thousand dollars twenty thousand dollar prize to any molecular 0:19:52.440 --> 0:19:56.200 biologists who could prove that Degray and the SENS Research 0:19:56.240 --> 0:20:00.840 Foundation which de Gray founded was quote so wrong that 0:20:00.960 --> 0:20:04.960 it was unworthy of learned debate in quote and Sends, 0:20:05.000 --> 0:20:08.400 by the way, stands for strategies for engineered negligible senescence. 0:20:08.480 --> 0:20:10.240 I think we mentioned that in our previous episode, but 0:20:10.280 --> 0:20:14.479 just in case you were wondering. So it was essentially saying, 0:20:15.080 --> 0:20:17.120 we will pay you twenty thou dollars if you can 0:20:17.160 --> 0:20:21.679 write up a piece that proves that the Sends argument, 0:20:21.840 --> 0:20:25.960 that their approach is uh so far into the realm 0:20:25.960 --> 0:20:30.520 of fantasy that it cannot be considered uh scientifically valid, 0:20:30.560 --> 0:20:34.120 and we shouldn't even like perpetual motion, we shouldn't even 0:20:34.119 --> 0:20:38.600 bother talking about it. So they got some judges that 0:20:38.640 --> 0:20:41.840 included biologists and computer scientists. Actually it's interesting if you 0:20:41.840 --> 0:20:44.600 look at the list of judges, uh, and they received 0:20:44.680 --> 0:20:47.720 five submissions to evaluate, but out of those five, only 0:20:47.840 --> 0:20:51.320 three actually met the terms of the challenge, so down 0:20:51.359 --> 0:20:53.480 to three. And then at that point de Gray was 0:20:53.520 --> 0:20:57.040 allowed to read each of the challenges to write a rebuttal, 0:20:57.560 --> 0:21:01.200 and then the people who wrote those pieces were able 0:21:01.240 --> 0:21:05.640 to read Degrad's rebuttal and respond to it. That entire 0:21:06.240 --> 0:21:09.160 piece would be taken into account when the judges were 0:21:09.200 --> 0:21:13.399 reading and reviewing the information, so in the end it 0:21:13.480 --> 0:21:17.439 was a stalemate. Essentially. The judges said that none of 0:21:17.480 --> 0:21:22.280 the three submissions that actually met the requirements proved that 0:21:22.320 --> 0:21:27.240 the sense approach was fundamentally flawed. But they also said 0:21:27.280 --> 0:21:30.439 that Degray failed to defend Sends properly and that his 0:21:30.520 --> 0:21:33.680 ideas were largely fanciful. So, in other words, no one 0:21:33.760 --> 0:21:37.000 came out of this looking great, although to be fair, 0:21:37.080 --> 0:21:39.520 they actually said that some of the pieces that were 0:21:39.560 --> 0:21:44.000 submitted were very well written. They just didn't succeed in 0:21:44.720 --> 0:21:51.000 convincing anyone that the sense approach was beyond doubt. Yeah, 0:21:51.040 --> 0:21:54.560 so some of the judges expressed personal doubts that sends 0:21:54.600 --> 0:21:57.439 as a valid approach, but granted that without scientific evidence 0:21:57.480 --> 0:22:00.880 to prove or disprove the hypotheses that sent represents, it's 0:22:00.880 --> 0:22:03.919 impossible to say that for certain. And they used the 0:22:04.040 --> 0:22:08.520 term quote sensational a lot to describe the sens agenda, 0:22:08.840 --> 0:22:12.760 which I think it works. It's sins sation. Uh. The 0:22:12.840 --> 0:22:16.199 judges did award ten thousand dollars. This came straight from 0:22:16.359 --> 0:22:18.879 m I T. They didn't touch Degray's money, So the 0:22:18.880 --> 0:22:20.879 ten dollars the m I T put up went to 0:22:21.040 --> 0:22:24.679 one submission, which they said the judges said was particularly 0:22:24.680 --> 0:22:26.960 well written, but didn't actually prove that SINS was beyond 0:22:26.960 --> 0:22:30.040 scientific merit. That piece was written by a collection of scholars, 0:22:30.200 --> 0:22:34.200 with Dr Preston w is Step the third as the 0:22:34.280 --> 0:22:37.719 chief author. The pieces available to read for free online. 0:22:37.840 --> 0:22:41.000 I recommend reading it. It is entertaining. The group argued 0:22:41.040 --> 0:22:44.160 that the SENS approach fit the definition of pseudo science, 0:22:44.520 --> 0:22:50.480 which is, in scientific terms, a sick burn so um. 0:22:50.520 --> 0:22:54.240 In that piece, e step at al. Wrote that these 0:22:55.080 --> 0:22:59.480 objections they listed objections earlier, they actually listed along I 0:22:59.480 --> 0:23:03.080 think like whinny item long list of things to identify 0:23:03.160 --> 0:23:05.679 whether this claim was pseudo scientific or not, and the 0:23:05.720 --> 0:23:08.280 first three or what they were focusing on. Those three 0:23:08.280 --> 0:23:11.480 objections highlight the fact that human aging is not well 0:23:11.680 --> 0:23:16.520 understood and any prospective therapy or cure must be regarded 0:23:16.560 --> 0:23:20.320 as pure speculation. This is in fact the crux of 0:23:20.359 --> 0:23:23.040 this list, and any claim of a cure for human 0:23:23.080 --> 0:23:27.159 aging prior to evidence of therapeutic efficacy or prior to 0:23:27.200 --> 0:23:32.080 a scientifically supported mechanistic model of human aging must be 0:23:32.320 --> 0:23:37.520 pseudo science. Which is pretty harsh words, but in a 0:23:37.520 --> 0:23:40.080 way you can understand exactly where they're coming from there, saying, 0:23:40.840 --> 0:23:44.320 if you don't understand the cause of a problem, you 0:23:44.359 --> 0:23:47.560 can't hope to solve the problem. You can, you can 0:23:47.600 --> 0:23:51.000 address the effects of the problem, but you're not solving 0:23:51.040 --> 0:23:54.760 the problem. And Degray, they were arguing, is making a 0:23:54.880 --> 0:23:58.120 case for solving a problem. And so that's that's where 0:23:58.119 --> 0:24:01.160 we're having an issue because what he's claiming, in our view, 0:24:01.680 --> 0:24:04.960 is impossible at this stage of our understanding. Uh. They 0:24:05.000 --> 0:24:08.800 objected to de grace seven pathologies, claiming that they are 0:24:08.880 --> 0:24:13.600 at least partially arbitrary, and that Degray purposefully excluded some 0:24:13.680 --> 0:24:17.960 pathologies unscientifically. So, in other words, he was identifying these 0:24:17.960 --> 0:24:21.720 seven keys to aging. But they said, there there are 0:24:21.800 --> 0:24:27.160 more that Degray, for reasons we don't understand, chose not 0:24:27.280 --> 0:24:30.040 to include. They don't fall into one of the other 0:24:30.080 --> 0:24:33.600